Question for Supporters of New WotP High School

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know what, I appreciate your candor, as you're acknowledging (I think) that proficiency rates at Wilson would go down in lottery system. Except that the rates at Wilson are already at only 60%. Given that figure, I believe your prediction of proficiency is far too optimistic. If it came to pass, there would be no real benefit for a Ward 3 family to try the lottery to Wilson, as the possibility of losing the lottery would be too horrible to contemplate. More realistically, if the system went lottery, the scores at Wilson would become similar to the other non-application high schools in the District: at around 30% proficiency or less.

I believe most of us realize this. Even so, I don't believe it is enough to undermine support for lotteries among a large segment of the public. The alternative to lotteries cannot be leaving everyone outside Ward 3 with no viable high school option. I started this thread to discuss one way to create a viable option. So, let's please get back to the topic of what it would take to make Roosevelt an acceptable option for many who would otherwise contribute to Wilson's overcrowding problem.

Hi Jeff, Mount Pleasant parent here. We don't know each other, but thanks for your excellent website!

I would appreciate it if you (and others) could please stop using "Ward 3" as shorthand for the high-SES, well-educated subset of Wilson (and Deal) families.

There are a number of us who meet or exceed this implied Ward 3 demographic/income standard and who deliberately chose to live within the Wilson boundary but EOTP, for example in Mount Pleasant. As you are probably aware, row houses in Mt P routinely sell for $1m+ now, so it's not really income or wealth that divides us anymore, just preferences.

What unites us is that we all bought our houses in part because they are IB for Wilson.

Our neighborhoods have been IB for Wilson for decades - we are not part of this OOB population to which you refer - and we hope to remain part of the Wilson (and Deal) communities for many years to come.

I hope you will advocate to keep Mt P part of Deal and Wilson, and not, as a PP has done on this thread with the map she/he drew, re-district us into Roosevelt or whatever the latest idea is for an EOTP school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think implementation is the main In order to keep that tap of students flowing, you need to create incentives for Ward 3 families to choose to send their kids there; for the most part, that means duplicating the entirety of Wilson's environment. Th the programs at the school.

This sounds clearly incorrect. If the parents are actively choosing, then by definition there must be meaningful differences.

I think you are correct that the "choice" would be difficult, because the result is really a forced choice for those Ward 3 families affected by the new boundaries: you're forced to go to Roosevelt, or you can choose to try for a charter, or you can choose to move out of town. That does kind of suck for them. But, going with the flow of the question: if the goal of the policy is to create a new Wilson in the middle of the city, then you've got to capture proficient students in some manner, and to do that you have to force some of them to be directed to the new school that you want to create.

The goal is to have an "anchor" of proficient students that will make Roosevelt of higher academic quality than is currently available to most of the city. And, now that I'm thinking about it, that "anchor" of Ward 3 families is probably not enough to make it successful. Either the affected Ward 3 families will kill the policy politically, or they will choose to leave the city. So, how about some additional incentive, and a more solid "anchor" of proficient students to feed into Roosevelt: create a new, application-only middle school somewhere in the middle of the city, that would feed into Roosevelt. This new middle school could draw proficient students from throughout the city. It would automatically be a great school. And, those students, graduating from the new middle, would have a meaningful choice: go to Roosevelt, a charter, or apply to Banneker and Walls. I think this would strengthen the quality of Roosevelt, and its desirability, pretty quickly.

Most of our fantasy proposals for Roosevelt will require a new middle school of some nature....right now there really isn't one.

"Capturing" a certain portion of Ward 3 families is never going get us to the goal because they can afford (politically and financially) to not be captured. It's got to be some combination of nearby Ward 3, Ward 4 families, IB (as in int'l Bacc) focused families and other members of the "morning diaspora" that are currently traveling across the city to get to Wilson. There are plenty of students for at least two good high schools. We know this because Wilson is overflowing. How can we make it attractive enough to get the above group on board? Rather, can DCPS execute the plan we draw up?

I think part of your premise is incorrect -- that the example of Wilson "proves" that there are plenty of students for at least two good high schools, absent the ability to "capture" Ward 3/HSES families. The primary if not sole reason Wilson is considered to be an academically proficient school is caused by the presence of those Ward 3/HSES students. Hypothetically, absent those Ward 3/HSES students, there would not be much appealing to an academically-minded student, based on test scores as a guide. Wilson without Ward 3/HSES students would not be a good school. You only have to take a look at the OSSE data to understand that this is true.

Where I think I agree with you is that in order to DUPLICATE Wilson's success, you don't necessarily need to capture that same percentage of Ward 3/HSES families, but you DO have capture a certain portion of a student population that will duplicate their academic performance (that is, over 90% proficiency at grade level). Now, how do you do that? Answer: the middle school you are looking for must select in some manner for proficient students, as a basis for admission. The reason this is so important is that Ward 3 is the only zone on the city with such a high concentration of proficient students -- that is, any high school in Ward 3 will automatically be proficient due to the high concentration of proficient students. Seeking to create an academically proficient school elsewhere in the city is simply impossible, without establishing a barrier to entry.

All of this begs the question: why in the world devote so many resources (political, intellectual, monetary, time) to duplicating Wilson, when the needs of the student population as a whole are clearly NOT to attend another Wilson? Most (not all, of course, MOST) of these kids, at the high school level, are at 30% proficiency at grade level or below. They are not going to benefit from an academically advanced schedule. Rather, they need programming tailored to raise them up, not speed them up. This reality, I think, is overlooked in a lot (but not all) of the conversations at DCUM.

Looking at the resources it would take to duplicate Wilson, it occurs to me that the Charter System is a better place to go, in order to accomplish that mission. The purpose of Charters (which is, arguably, to enable parental choices among schools) is much better suited to accomplishing a job like this, rather than DCPS's purpose (which is, arguably, to meet the needs of all students, not just select students).

But you could still do it through DCPS -- do what it takes to create a selective school, and you will get a selective result.

[Anonymous]

"Capturing" a certain portion of Ward 3 families is never going get us to the goal because they can afford (politically and financially) to not be captured. It's got to be some combination of nearby Ward 3, Ward 4 families, IB (as in int'l Bacc) focused families and other members of the "morning diaspora" that are currently traveling across the city to get to Wilson. There are plenty of students for at least two good high schools. We know this because Wilson is overflowing. How can we make it attractive enough to get the above group on board? Rather, can DCPS execute the plan we draw up?

INTL Bacc. for high school (I can ensure many Deal Families will want there, plus lots of highly educated families/kids who plan to stay in DC for 4-5 yrs then go back to their countries) +
Either test-in of DC Profiency track (sorry for using teh word track, make it sound better for your purposes)

Regarding the above comment, I do not agree. With the following 3 ingredients you could draw a lot of Ward 3 and ward 4 proficient students: 1) a well-designed program and 2) strong and credible commitment from DCPS, 3) Capable and open-minded Principal.

It took just an announcement to draw immediately a strong cohort of Ward 3 families to Basis (the same ones who you say can afford not to be captured).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason you think it's too big of a switch for WOTP families is because the Roosevelt building is located in a neighborhood that is majority AA. However, I'm not pitching the DC-CAS proficient HS idea to WOTP families.

There are quite enough involved EOTP parents of all races and incomes to populate a high school. That's really the issue EOTP---that while in the aggregate you have enough motivated engaged students (and families) to create another decently performing HS, you do not have enough of those families concentrated in any one EOTP HS boundary-area in sufficient numbers to make a qualitative performance difference. So lump all those kids (and their families) together at one DC-CAS proficient MS/HS.

This was supposed to be the idea behind the big renovation at Eastern though, right?

[Anonymous]

Updated proposal summary (feel free to edit)

######

Theodore Roosevelt HS: A comprehensive high school with three distinct academies

Academic Program:

• The International Baccalaureate Program @Roosevelt
This program provides a world-class educational experience aligned with the frameworks and standards of the International Baccalaureate Program. We expect all students who successfully complete our course of study to be prepared for the International Baccalaureate diploma. Serve as a city-wide magnet.

• General Program
Geared to serve the needs of all students

• Best-Practices Special Education Program
Social and behavioral skilles honed, counselors, drug and alcohol interventionists, and social workers on staff. Provide instruction in core subjects such as English, math, science and social studies, and also offers special education classes.

Feeder:
A new middle school housed in the existing MacFarland building on Iowa Ave. Could be either full or partially test-in.

Boundary:


Amenities:

• East-West cross-city Transportation provided
• HIGHLY connected and qualified college counselors on staff
• Recruit department head teachers from successful schools in the region, especially those with IB experience. Include pay differential?
• Starter funds for clubs, teams and activities in proportion to their availibility at Wilson (i.e. Crew)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Hi Jeff, Mount Pleasant parent here. We don't know each other, but thanks for your excellent website!

I would appreciate it if you (and others) could please stop using "Ward 3" as shorthand for the high-SES, well-educated subset of Wilson (and Deal) families.

There are a number of us who meet or exceed this implied Ward 3 demographic/income standard and who deliberately chose to live within the Wilson boundary but EOTP, for example in Mount Pleasant. As you are probably aware, row houses in Mt P routinely sell for $1m+ now, so it's not really income or wealth that divides us anymore, just preferences.

What unites us is that we all bought our houses in part because they are IB for Wilson.

Our neighborhoods have been IB for Wilson for decades - we are not part of this OOB population to which you refer - and we hope to remain part of the Wilson (and Deal) communities for many years to come.

I hope you will advocate to keep Mt P part of Deal and Wilson, and not, as a PP has done on this thread with the map she/he drew, re-district us into Roosevelt or whatever the latest idea is for an EOTP school.

Hi Mount Pleasant Parent:

I sure that it was not intentional, but your post comes off as pretty obnoxious and self-unaware. I also live in a neighborhood in which homes routinely sell for $1m+, that has been zoned for Deal and Wilson for decades, which is united by residents having purchased homes zoned for Deal and Wilson, where we hope to remain a part of the Deal and Wilson communities for many years to come, and in which we are not part of the Deal and Wilson OOB community.

Going by your logic, there would be no need for me to start this thread in the first place. In fact, I am not sure your logic requires revisiting boundaries at all other than to perhaps compare real estate appraisals and remove those neighborhoods below the Mt. Pleasant benchmark.

There are multiple ways to approach the very real overcrowding problems facing Wilson and, to a lesser extent, Deal. One way is to fight for pieces of the current pie and tell those left without a piece to go blow. Current political realities are such that my neighborhood likely would fair pretty well under that scenario. Mayoral candidate Bowser has only outlined three strong positions regarding the boundary process and one of those is that my neighborhood should retain its traditional rights to Deal and Wilson.

Another approach is to increase the number of pies. That is the approach we've been discussing in this thread. I resent your implication that I would settle for an educational opportunity for my family that would not be at a level acceptable to your family. Both you and I purchased homes that had rights to a Deal/Wilson level education. I would not accept anything less than a Deal/Wilson level education for my family and I wouldn't expect you to do so either. I don't have an opinion on the Roosevelt boundaries and whether or not Mt. Pleasant should be included. But, your attitude that because you paid a lot for your house you shouldn't be part of a solution that creates additional pies is troubling and unhelpful. If you want to ensure that your rights to Wilson are protected, the best thing you can do is help create a Roosevelt that is equal or better than Wilson. Then, families such as mine would attend by choice and you could have Wilson to yourself.

[Anonymous]

If you want to ensure that your rights to Wilson are protected, the best thing you can do is help create a Roosevelt that is equal or better than Wilson. Then, families such as mine would attend by choice and you could have Wilson to yourself.

Exactly. And now is the time to work toward it, but we keep falling into the pit between EOTP and WOTP.

All this talk about IB forgets Shepherd ES (as does the map above). They've had an IB program for years and would likely welcome a middle school that continues that track, not to mention an alternatve to Deal. Easy bus ride down 16th Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to ensure that your rights to Wilson are protected, the best thing you can do is help create a Roosevelt that is equal or better than Wilson. Then, families such as mine would attend by choice and you could have Wilson to yourself.

Exactly. And now is the time to work toward it, but we keep falling into the pit between EOTP and WOTP.

All this talk about IB forgets Shepherd ES (as does the map above). They've had an IB program for years and would likely welcome a middle school that continues that track, not to mention an alternatve to Deal. Easy bus ride down 16th Street.

Deal is IB (International Baccalaureate). I wouldn't be hopeful about DCPS starting a second IB MS before the first IB HS got off the ground.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi Jeff, Mount Pleasant parent here. We don't know each other, but thanks for your excellent website!

I would appreciate it if you (and others) could please stop using "Ward 3" as shorthand for the high-SES, well-educated subset of Wilson (and Deal) families.

There are a number of us who meet or exceed this implied Ward 3 demographic/income standard and who deliberately chose to live within the Wilson boundary but EOTP, for example in Mount Pleasant. As you are probably aware, row houses in Mt P routinely sell for $1m+ now, so it's not really income or wealth that divides us anymore, just preferences.

What unites us is that we all bought our houses in part because they are IB for Wilson.

Our neighborhoods have been IB for Wilson for decades - we are not part of this OOB population to which you refer - and we hope to remain part of the Wilson (and Deal) communities for many years to come.

I hope you will advocate to keep Mt P part of Deal and Wilson, and not, as a PP has done on this thread with the map she/he drew, re-district us into Roosevelt or whatever the latest idea is for an EOTP school.

Hi Mount Pleasant Parent:

I sure that it was not intentional, but your post comes off as pretty obnoxious and self-unaware. I also live in a neighborhood in which homes routinely sell for $1m+, that has been zoned for Deal and Wilson for decades, which is united by residents having purchased homes zoned for Deal and Wilson, where we hope to remain a part of the Deal and Wilson communities for many years to come, and in which we are not part of the Deal and Wilson OOB community.

Going by your logic, there would be no need for me to start this thread in the first place. In fact, I am not sure your logic requires revisiting boundaries at all other than to perhaps compare real estate appraisals and remove those neighborhoods below the Mt. Pleasant benchmark.

There are multiple ways to approach the very real overcrowding problems facing Wilson and, to a lesser extent, Deal. One way is to fight for pieces of the current pie and tell those left without a piece to go blow. Current political realities are such that my neighborhood likely would fair pretty well under that scenario. Mayoral candidate Bowser has only outlined three strong positions regarding the boundary process and one of those is that my neighborhood should retain its traditional rights to Deal and Wilson.

Another approach is to increase the number of pies. That is the approach we've been discussing in this thread. I resent your implication that I would settle for an educational opportunity for my family that would not be at a level acceptable to your family. Both you and I purchased homes that had rights to a Deal/Wilson level education. I would not accept anything less than a Deal/Wilson level education for my family and I wouldn't expect you to do so either. I don't have an opinion on the Roosevelt boundaries and whether or not Mt. Pleasant should be included. But, your attitude that because you paid a lot for your house you shouldn't be part of a solution that creates additional pies is troubling and unhelpful. If you want to ensure that your rights to Wilson are protected, the best thing you can do is help create a Roosevelt that is equal or better than Wilson. Then, families such as mine would attend by choice and you could have Wilson to yourself.

Mt P parent again - thanks for your reply. Probably there are many on DCUM who know where you live, because of previous posts that you have made, but I do not know where you live, so I can't reply to what you write with regard to your own neighborhood.

Regarding your first statement in bold: I'm going to ignore the real estate appraisal comment, but otherwise, yes, my logic is that there is no need to redraw boundaries so long as there are OOB students at a school, whether by feeder rights or other paths. In most school districts across the country OOB is only offered when a school is not full with IB students. It is a basic principle of fairness that you solve an over-crowding problem first by reducing or eliminating OOB and only then, if overcrowding remains, by reducing the geographical IB area. For example at the ES level, Janney is now full of IB students and thus it no longer accepts OOB. That's how it is supposed to operate. I don't see any proposals to shrink the Janney IB area in order to accept more OOB. Yet there are some, like the other poster on this thread who is posting proposed boundary maps, who would propose to carve Mt P out of Wilson and, presumably, allow OOB students from feeders to continue attending Wilson. This is unfair - shrinking boundaries should be a last resort. First, you reduce OOB.

Re: your second statement - again, I don't know where you live so I don't understand your comment - are you within the Roosevelt boundary proposed in the maps on this thread?

Re: your third statement in bold above, this doesn't make sense in the context of the proposals in this thread. The boundary maps in this thread show Mt P assigned to Roosevelt, so it would appear that if I help create Roosevelt, as proposed here, I likely will lose the Wilson access, right?

In general you seem overly optimistic about the prospects of this new school, but that's another discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Mt P parent again - thanks for your reply. Probably there are many on DCUM who know where you live, because of previous posts that you have made, but I do not know where you live, so I can't reply to what you write with regard to your own neighborhood.

Regarding your first statement in bold: I'm going to ignore the real estate appraisal comment, but otherwise, yes, my logic is that there is no need to redraw boundaries so long as there are OOB students at a school, whether by feeder rights or other paths. In most school districts across the country OOB is only offered when a school is not full with IB students. It is a basic principle of fairness that you solve an over-crowding problem first by reducing or eliminating OOB and only then, if overcrowding remains, by reducing the geographical IB area. For example at the ES level, Janney is now full of IB students and thus it no longer accepts OOB. That's how it is supposed to operate. I don't see any proposals to shrink the Janney IB area in order to accept more OOB. Yet there are some, like the other poster on this thread who is posting proposed boundary maps, who would propose to carve Mt P out of Wilson and, presumably, allow OOB students from feeders to continue attending Wilson. This is unfair - shrinking boundaries should be a last resort. First, you reduce OOB.

Re: your second statement - again, I don't know where you live so I don't understand your comment - are you within the Roosevelt boundary proposed in the maps on this thread?

Re: your third statement in bold above, this doesn't make sense in the context of the proposals in this thread. The boundary maps in this thread show Mt P assigned to Roosevelt, so it would appear that if I help create Roosevelt, as proposed here, I likely will lose the Wilson access, right?

In general you seem overly optimistic about the prospects of this new school, but that's another discussion.

Attempting to resolve Wilson and Deal overcrowding simply by eliminating OOB feeder rights is just a version of the "fighting for a piece of the pie" scenario. You've got your piece of the pie, so let the OOB students eat cake. Don't be surprised when they start rolling out a metaphorical guillotine, a citywide high school lottery.

The boundary maps in this thread are the creation of one poster who is simply trying to advance the discussion and give us a framework for discussion. If you have a better idea for a map, please contribute it. I live in Crestwood which, like Mt. Pleasant, has long been zoned for Deal and Wilson. Crestwood has been included in the Roosevelt boundaries in the maps posted here. But, as I've said repeatedly, I would not send my children to a school that was not of equal or better quality than Wilson.

Incidentally, the DME's Proposal Example B shrinks Janney's boundaries and reserves 10% of the seats for OOB students. So, if you haven't seen such a proposal, please read Example B.

We don't know what, if anything, will happen to Roosevelt's boundaries. We are just brainstorming to see what possibilities exist to make Roosevelt an attractive alternative to an overcrowded Wilson. Two out of three of the DME's proposals call for citywide lotteries for high schools. So, maybe there won't be boundaries at all.

Of course optimism is required for this exercise. I know that you feel it is important to look out for your own interests. It is equally important to me to look out for my interests, just as it is for every other poster in this forum to look out for theirs. However, it is self-defeating if your fixation on protecting your piece of the Wilson pie results in something even worse. Do you want a citywide high school lottery? If so, then stand strong in your position that only a select few should be able to have access to Wilson while everyone else is left with unacceptable alternatives. I'd rather see additional high quality alternatives and this thread is aimed at exploring one possibility. There has been a lot of great input for which I am thankful. But, the few posters whose only interest is ensuring that they don't have to sacrifice in the slightest way are very short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Mt P parent again - thanks for your reply. Probably there are many on DCUM who know where you live, because of previous posts that you have made, but I do not know where you live, so I can't reply to what you write with regard to your own neighborhood.

Regarding your first statement in bold: I'm going to ignore the real estate appraisal comment, but otherwise, yes, my logic is that there is no need to redraw boundaries so long as there are OOB students at a school, whether by feeder rights or other paths. In most school districts across the country OOB is only offered when a school is not full with IB students. It is a basic principle of fairness that you solve an over-crowding problem first by reducing or eliminating OOB and only then, if overcrowding remains, by reducing the geographical IB area. For example at the ES level, Janney is now full of IB students and thus it no longer accepts OOB. That's how it is supposed to operate. I don't see any proposals to shrink the Janney IB area in order to accept more OOB. Yet there are some, like the other poster on this thread who is posting proposed boundary maps, who would propose to carve Mt P out of Wilson and, presumably, allow OOB students from feeders to continue attending Wilson. This is unfair - shrinking boundaries should be a last resort. First, you reduce OOB.

What was offensive in your post is that you ask that you not be excluded from consideration given to Wilson families just because you don't live in Ward 3 - because you're basically the same demographic and income, just living in a different palce.

Jeff (along with many, many others) is also of that demographic and income level and lives in a million dollar neighborhood that's in hollering distance from Mt. P. Crestwood is EOTP and currently zoned for Wilson but the DME proposal cuts the feed to Deal Wilson.

If you're concerned about your place at Wilson due to overcrowsing, you should be supporting a viable HS option that's on par with Wilson. I don't think anyone feels that families would have to lose rights to Wilson if they went to a new Roosevelt. The ideal is that those near Roosevelt would have a school and that WOTP families might consider it as an alternative to Wilson (not forced from it).

[Anonymous]

And while we all would certainly want the new and improved Roosevelt to launch overnight...we know that can't really happen. I think if DCPS did this right, it would have significant ramp-up time...(3 or 4 years...doesn't that seem right?)..with that sort of lead time, you can build interest, grandfather a reasonable amount of people/addresses in, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you will advocate to keep Mt P part of Deal and Wilson, and not, as a PP has done on this thread with the map she/he drew, re-district us into Roosevelt or whatever the latest idea is for an EOTP school.

You'd better start working or at least support the exercise we are doing in this thread. Mt Pleasant is just one mile from Cardozo and re-directing you to Cardozo could happen at any of the next proposals.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And while we all would certainly want the new and improved Roosevelt to launch overnight...we know that can't really happen. I think if DCPS did this right, it would have significant ramp-up time...(3 or 4 years...doesn't that seem right?)..with that sort of lead time, you can build interest, grandfather a reasonable amount of people/addresses in, etc.

I agree. Also, there probably needs to be time to ramp up a middle school which likely requires renovation of the existing building which is currently be used by Roosevelt.

If we ever get participation in this thread from current Roosevelt stakeholders, we might try to see how we can support them with the needs of the current students. They don't deserve to be abandoned until the school meets our requirements.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while we all would certainly want the new and improved Roosevelt to launch overnight...we know that can't really happen. I think if DCPS did this right, it would have significant ramp-up time...(3 or 4 years...doesn't that seem right?)..with that sort of lead time, you can build interest, grandfather a reasonable amount of people/addresses in, etc.

I agree. Also, there probably needs to be time to ramp up a middle school which likely requires renovation of the existing building which is currently be used by Roosevelt.

If we ever get participation in this thread from current Roosevelt stakeholders, we might try to see how we can support them with the needs of the current students. They don't deserve to be abandoned until the school meets our requirements.

There must be other ways to reach out to them besides this thread.